Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond that: the plan travels in the link and nothing is stored, and personal data like names, phone numbers, and emails is refused. It omits edge cases such as link length limits or refusal behavior, but covers the key behavioral traits.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three tight sentences ordered purpose, storage model, then content rule. Every sentence carries useful information and the main purpose is front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with one deeply nested plan object and no output schema, the description explains the storage model, content restrictions, and the implied return value of a planner link. Gaps around URL length limits and error behavior are minor but keep it from being fully complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the nested plan fields are documented in the schema. The description adds important meaning beyond the schema by restricting plan content to numbers and short labels and explicitly refusing personal names, phone numbers, and emails. It does not explain individual fields, but the schema already does that.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Builds') and resource ('Before the Lot planner link'), plus the outcome ('opens with the numbers given already filled in'). The link-builder purpose is clearly distinct from the calculator and comparison siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Implies usage through 'continue in the planner' and the content restrictions, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or named alternative. The agent must infer that this is for sharing a plan rather than calculating one.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.